[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7374)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 29 May 2023 13:52 UTC

To: ietf@bobbriscoe.net, jri.ietf@gmail.com, mt@lowentropy.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7374)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230529135202.F0BF785293@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 06:52:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/Ysl-1OhvYmjD0fxiWT_mxRIJ-mA>
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC9000, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7374

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Date Reported: 2023-02-27
Held by: Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG)

Section: 13.4.1

Original Text
-------------
If an
endpoint does not implement ECN support or does not have access to
received ECN fields, it does not report ECN counts for packets it
receives.

Even if an endpoint does not set an ECT field in packets it sends,
the endpoint MUST provide feedback about ECN markings it receives, if
these are accessible.

Corrected Text
--------------
If an
endpoint does not have access to
received ECN fields, it does not report ECN counts for packets it
receives.

Even if an endpoint does not set an ECT field in packets it sends,
the endpoint MUST provide feedback about ECN markings it receives, if
these are accessible.

Notes
-----
In the second sentence, the only allowed exception to "MUST provide feedback about received ECN markings" is inaccessibility. The first sentence contradicts this by allowing two exceptions: inaccessibility and just "not implementing ECN support".

If "not implementing ECN support" was really intended to be an allowed exception, the capitalized "MUST" would have been pointless.

Therefore it is proposed that the words "does not implement ECN support or " are deleted from the first paragraph.

NOTE : Based on discussion in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/lsz4X-cZql71Ba56uQhNQz4NzGc/ , the error type is changed from technical to editorial.

--------------------------------------
RFC9000 (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34)
--------------------------------------
Title : QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport
Publication Date : May 2021
Author(s) : J. Iyengar, Ed., M. Thomson, Ed.
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : QUIC
Area : Transport
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7374) RFC Errata System